I've been leaning toward "edition" as a translation of naskh. A new edition of a book may change all or part of an older edition, but may add details and elaborations as well. That is what naskh is.

If "edition" is not to your liking, how about "reissuance"? When a directive is reissued, it may modify all or part of the previous directive, but may elaborate it further, itemize its options, its exceptions, etc. That is what naskh is.

Other words, such as "modification", "amendment", "revision", according to the English thesaurus, all have the connotation of realizing an error and fixing it.

I think there is no single English word that captures all meanings of the word naskh. One of the meanings is abrogation, another is copying, and the words you used capture many shades very nicely. The goal here is to use the word that is closest to the meaning intended in Arabic in each case by itself, so it would be modification or something similar for most of Ibn Abbas' narrations, and would be annulment/abrogation in this verse for example:

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 42, talks about the type of abrogation of both text and ruling. He says that Judge Abu-Bakr has reported that some scholars have rejected that type of abrogation because all narrations about it are singles, and they asserted that no decision on revelation of a verse or abrogation thereof can be made using a single narration chain, because that is an uncertain evidence (ظني).

He says that Dr. Mannaa` Al-Qattaan, in his book مباحث في علوم القرآن, pages 238-240, answered that by saying that proving revelation is different from proving abrogation. The former must be with certain, ubiquitous narration, but the latter may be with less than ubiquitous text.

Huh? When was that rule established? By what authority? Didn't scholars already agree, as shown in the previous post, that the abrogator must be equal in authenticity or exceeds that of the abrogated?

Abrogating commands not mentioned in the Quran, such as Qibla toward Jerusalem and fasting on the tenth of Muharram. To call this an abrogation is overreaching. There is no evidence that the initial practices were by order from God.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris comments on this in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 44, by saying that the majority of scholars agree on that. He gives two examples: Abrogation of Qibla toward Jerusalem and abrogation of fasting in `Aashuraa'. He sad that both abrogated rulings were established by the Sunna and that there is nothing in the Quran that implies them.

Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, presented by Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, page 95, reports a strange story narrated by Ibn Mas`ood (RA). In it he says that the Prophet (PBUH) had him memorize a verse and he wrote it in his own mus-haf (bound volume of te Quran). Next morning, he could not remember it, so he opened his mus-haf to check it and found its space blank! He went to the Prohet (PBUH) to tell him and the Prophet (PBUH) said to him, "It was lifted yesterday."

Dr. Faaris, in the footnotes, refers the reader to four different chapters in Al-Bukhaari's authentic compilations of hadeeth for authentication of this story. So, I decided to look for it there. It's not in any of the four chapters he mentioned! It's not anywhere else in Al-Bukhaari's book. I continued looking for it in other books. It's not in any other book that I could find. The only similar story is reported as authentic only by Ibn Taymiya in his book الفتاوى (rulings) and narrated by Sahl ibn Haneef. It refers to an unnamed man and not Ibn Mas`ood.

I don't understand how Shu`la would attribute to Ibn Mas`ood something he didn't say, or why would Dr. Faaris make the reader think a story is authentic just to claim that abrogation from the Quran has happened.

Dr. Faaris, in the footnotes, refers the reader to four different chapters in Al-Bukhaari's authentic compilations of hadeeth for authentication of this story. So, I decided to look for it there. It's not in any of the four chapters he mentioned! It's not anywhere else in Al-Bukhaari's book. I continued looking for it in other books. It's not in any other book that I could find. The only similar story is reported as authentic only by Ibn Taymiya in his book الفتاوى (rulings) and narrated by Sahl ibn Haneef. It refers to an unnamed man and not Ibn Mas`ood.

This is pretty serious. Is the search you did conclusive? I remember reading about "رفعت البارحة" and I didn't pursue it since it has no bearing on the abrogation doctrine, strange as it may be.

BTW, the rating "authentic" is applied to narrations by singles, right? I think in our argument we should emphasize the "single" aspect especially in specific abrogation claims. The methodology of the scholars in transcribing the Quran was that a Quranic verse cannot be certified for inclusion by singles, regardless of how authentic, so it definitely cannot be annulled by singles. If annulling by singles was allowed, the last two suras in the Quran would be gone due to none other than Ibn Mas'oud (RA).

I did all I could. And today, I looked up the story in the famous index book المعجم المفهرس لألفاظ الحديث النبوي, by M. Fu'aad Abdul-Baaqi. It's not there either. His index book covers nine Hadeeth books, the top six plus Ibn Hanbal's, Maalik's and Ad-Daarimi's.

BTW, the rating "authentic" is applied to narrations by singles, right? I think in our argument we should emphasize the "single" aspect especially in specific abrogation claims. The methodology of the scholars in transcribing the Quran was that a Quranic verse cannot be certified for inclusion by singles, regardless of how authentic, so it definitely cannot be annulled by singles.

That's right. Scholars have largely agreed that the abrogator must be stronger in force or equal to the abrogated.

There are only some 300 hadeeths that are ubiquitous (متواتر). The rest of the roughly 9000 hadeeths rated authentic are singles.

I find it indisputable that previous books, in their original uncorrupted version, mandated fasting that is not our Ramadan fasting,

In his discussion of whether 2:183 was abrogated, Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 107, mentions Mujaahid's interpretation of the simile particle in 2:183. Mujaahid's opinion is that prior nations were required to fast the month of Ramadhaan but they changed that teaching. Qataada agreed.

I find it indisputable that previous books, in their original uncorrupted version, mandated fasting that is not our Ramadan fasting,

In his discussion of whether 2:183 was abrogated, Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 107, mentions Mujaahid's interpretation of the simile particle in 2:183. Mujaahid's opinion is that prior nations were required to fast the month of Ramadhaan but they changed that teaching. Qataada agreed.

I would be stunned why there wouldn't be any trace of that in any history, even in fringe sects of previous religions. I just don't buy that at all.

How about Aashoura? Isn't it authentic that it was mandated fast for the Jews?

`Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, pages 57-60, discusses the different types of abrogation which he agrees with, as follows:

Verses which were abrogated, but we don't know by what!

As an example, he cites a narration about the martyrs of the Ma`oona well (بئر معونة). The narration has been authenticated by both Al-Bukhaari and Muslim. It says that Muslims used to recite about those martyrs a verse that said "بلغوا عنا قومنا أنا لقينا ربنا فرضي عنا وأرضانا", which was later lifted. Translation: "Tell our folks for us that we met our Lord and He was happy with us and made us happy."

Two problems:

This narration is not attributed to the Prophet (PBUH), but to his fellow Anas ibn Maalik (RA),. Therefore, it's his view, not something the Prophet taught, or else he would've said so.

Why would such a verse be abrogated? Has anything in it changed? Has God become unhappy with those martyrs later, God forbid? `Afaana doesn't bother to bring up that point.

Verses that were revealed that we don't know but we know what abrogated them!

As an example, he cites the change-of-Qibla verse,

He says that this verse indicates that the first prayer direction was by a divine revelation. But the verse doesn't say that. If it were by divine revelation, then why didn't God say something clearer about it, such as "We did not instruct you of the previous direction except to...". The verse also describes the first prayer direction with the words "the direction you [, O Muhammad,] were on." That clearly means it was the Prophet's own idea. Thus, the verse simply says that God let the direction the Prophet followed go on for a while for a purpose.

`Afaana then tries to back up his argument here by citing the verse he thinks abrogated 2:143,

He argues that the words "We do see the turning of your face into the sky" as proving that the initial prayer direction was by divine revelation. Where does it say that? It says that the Prophet (PBUH) was beseeching God for guidance on a prayer direction. That guidance finally came with 2:144 and 2:143 simply explains why God didn't give that guidance sooner.

Then `Afaana cites again the narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas, which was proven inauthentic.

Verses revealed then abrogated in words and ruling which we know nothing about!

So, how do we know they were revealed in the first place?

Verses revealed then abrogated in words and ruling and we know what abrogated them!

Translation:Ubayy said, "We used to see that from the Quran until Chapter 102 was revealed."

Which means that was their perception of it, not something the Prophet (PBUH) taught them, or else Ubayy would've said that.

Narrated Ibn Abbaas, `Aa'isha and Umar,

كنا نقرأ: والشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة بما قضيا من اللذة.

Translation:"We used to recite "And the old man and the old woman, if they fornicate then stone them absolutely, for the pleasure they had."

Setting aside for the moment the poor prose and twisted logic of that text, suggesting that adultery is punished for the pleasure people get from it, the narration is not attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) and therefore cannot be used for evidence of anything.

`Afaana almost refutes that himself when he cites what Umar said about it. Umar said, "If it weren't that people would say that Umar added to the Quran, I would've written it in it!" In another narration by Umar, he said that the Prophet (PBUH) specifically forbade him from including it in the Quran! As if Umar was authorized to write the Quran as he pleases!

Doesn't that prove that it never was? `Afaana answers that by saying it was once but then abrogated by 24:2.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum